Joined: 29 Jan 2013Posts: 1107Location: Chamber of the House of Lords, Palace of Westminister

Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2014 9:34 pm Post subject:

You know, it seems natural to ship Hagrid with Madame Maxime- but people forget about the time Hagrid kissed McGonagall in the first book, and the brilliant ship that would have made._________________Good day, good people!

Now, are we going to have these threads for all the but-I-really-want-a-fembot-because-no-human-is-ever-going-to-let-me-do-all-the-creepy-things-in-my-head types to out themselves on a regular basis?

We should not, and my last post describes the pointlessness of such a thing.

For the people (not you) who will doubtlessly attempt such a thing, I can try to explain why not:

ATTEMPT ONE: A KIND OF WORDY AND OVERLY METHODOLOGICAL PROOF symptomatic of a LIBERAL ARTS EDUCATION:

1. The fembots are a narrative device and their personhood is a construct that is specifically designed around that narrative

2. Furthermore, the fembots are part of an ideological narrative and their personhood is a construct that is specifically designed around that ideology

3. The narrative (and the ideology) that the personhood and consciousness and sapience of the fembots is designed around (to the extent that you can say it is overtly and clearly directed with purpose by the author) is, itself, designed to make a point about the object immorality of the objectification of the fembots, and

3(a). the objectification of the fembots is, by design, an analogy for the immorality of the objectification and use of women by patriarchal society

so

The universe itself and the very fundamental object nature of their consciousness and sapience is deliberately built around that point. Therefore, the use of a fembot from the sinfest universe for their intended purpose is categorically immoral. The very universe and metaphysic and nature of their consciousness and personhood is designed purposefully and intentionally around that point, that it's wrong to use them.

Someone arguing that it's still ok to use a fembot as a possession might as well be arguing that communism is a moral choice in an Ayn Rand novel. It's not, the entire universe is designed around making and presenting anything but pure capitalism as literally evil. Likewise, the entire sinfest universe is designed around making and presenting the use of fembots as objects or possessions as an immoral product of patriarchy, as defined by social conflict theory.

if this attempt does not suffice, divert to

ATTEMPT TWO: A SUMMARY OF ATTEMPT ONE WITHOUT (too many) FANCY WORDS OR METAPHYSICAL CONCEPTS

Tatsuya is designing and writing the sinfest universe to make a point about patriarchy. The fembots are, as a narrative device, purposefully designed to represent immoral use, oppression, and objectification of women under patriarchy. The consciousness of fembots is specifically designed in the sinfest universe to support that fact. The way sinfest fembots were designed determines how they exist in the sinfest world. How they exist is such that it is categorically immoral to own or use one; the way their consciousness is designed by the author is that they have personhood which renders their use as a purchasable object tantamount to slavery and patriarchal subjugation of a sapient creature. So if you're reading Sinfest and thinking that it should be ok to use these fembots as objects: ew.

if this attempt does not suffice, divert to

ATTEMPT THREE: A PITHY RETAKE OF ATTEMPT TWO

The fembots' consciousness is literally designed by the author around making their ownership and use extremely skeevy and immoral, so if you are fully aware of what a sinfest fembot is in the sinfest universe and how they have clearly been shown to work/think/feel, and you are still going to argue that it's moral to use them, you are a super skeev who missed an overtly ideological softball, sorry

No, I really don't. Just pointing out that you're contributions are consistently negative and insubstantial.

That is the best summary I think could be made.

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:

Samsally wrote:

No, I really don't. Just pointing out that you're contributions are consistently negative and insubstantial.

To be fair so are mine, just about 20-25% less prolific.

But see, yours are funny: they tend to involve swearing at people who aren't listening to anyone and making terrible arguments. Plus, you don't act like you think pretty much everyone other than yourself is stupid for getting involved in these debates.

Istancow wrote:

I rather like Rants.

But then I sort of started out on this board mostly just posting silly things and spam myself, to the clear annoyance of at least a couple of posters, and to the probable annoyance of many more.

Comparing the sister hood protecting themselves from getting spied on and having their privacy invaded to some dude who wants to live out fantasies of fucking children DOES NOT FLY.

These are not equal in any way shape or form. The fact that you can't see that is completely terrifying.

There are 3 sentient spy drones and 5 sentient fembots. Drones, like fembots, can be made sentient by a small zap. So they are about equal in the amount of sentience you can assume.

P.S. I've never used a curse word against you or anyone else either (except in quoting others). I'd appreciate the same amount of civility that I've always shown you.

i just had to clear this up. the word in read is, indeed, a curse word, but in this context it is used as a verb, not an attack. one could, i suppose, replace this with "fantasies of having sexual intercourse with children", but it does lack a certain emotional impact._________________aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter

I think Sam's comparison of authorial intent between Tats and Rand is a very good point. There is an over-idealized hero (Xanthe, compare with Howard Roark) a simpleton fuck-up main character who never learns shit (Slick, compare with Peter Keating) and all of the villains are hollow straw-men with no redeeming characteristics whatsoever (Milton, Satan, compare with Ellsworth Toohey). And that's only from The Fountainhead. I could probably dig up more if I could withstand the mental anguish of trying to read Atlas Shrugged. There isn't meant to be any subjectivity to morality in either author's work. They have a point to make and if you disagree with them, you're just wrong.

Although at least Rand, despite being a terrible human being with terrible views, actually wrote about her views directly and answered questions about them directly instead of leaving it all up to inconsistent symbolisms across a comic. At least she could be engaged.

It's less about me engaging him than it is about his reluctance to engage or be engaged. My two best guesses as to why he would never do this are:

1. Engaging with dissenters gives them the public perception of credibility. This is why medical professionals often refuse to answer questions about the "vaccinations cause autism" myth and why it took Obama so long to release his birth certificate. Engagement with dissenters would legitimize them, at least in their own minds, and cause them to multiply.

2. The medium of the comic strip being his only means of communicating his views makes most of his points reliant on context and symbolism as opposed to a long speech explaining everything, which is one area where he is pretty much the opposite of Rand. In an argument based on words meanings are more concrete. If needed an argument can be broken down into it's syllogistic components and analyzed for logical inconsistencies. Visual Symbolism in Sinfest isn't even consistent, changing meaning over time and context based largely on how Tats feels. It isn't "X represents Y and will always represent Y" but "X represents Y because Tats feels like it today." If he wrote out his opinions he would be stuck in fixed arguments that he may not be able to defend or ret-con to pretend he actually meant something else. He can do that all he likes with his comic strip. If he had to engage in a debate with somebody, anybody, on equal terms where issues are tackled in more than a few panels and proof must be presented to back up assertions he'd risk an ass-handing. Not that one is guaranteed, Tats has some pretty decent verbal chops, but he wouldn't even want to present the opportunity.

It's weird to me that point 2 seems to hinge on the idea that Tat's own beliefs are necessarily inconsistent and indefensible, and that his reluctance to engage has anything to do with the current vision of the comic. He's never given many interviews, and has always interacted sparsely with fans, since the beginning of the comic. In order for point 2 to work would require that he either always felt his ideas were indefensible, or he foresaw his future transformation, neither of which hold much water.

It's also weird to me that you didn't list "maximizing his privacy." I mean... he doesn't talk to many publications, and there aren't many photographs of him... sounds like someone who values their privacy to me._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

to be honest if I were in tat's position I would not interact with my fanbase at all either, outside of in the worst vortexes of fanboy canonwank and theorycraft to pop up and say "Hey guys, just repeat to yourself 'it's just a webcomic, I should really just relax'"

If this made me less "accessible" than Ayn Rand (who was really accessible only in the sense of her grotesque and insipid self-assured demand to be considered the greatest thinker of all time and the sole analytic-intellectual heir to Aristotle's greatness, to be fawned over by a cultlike circle of brittle insiders) well then ALL THE BETTER I SAY